10-Year-Old Shoots Dad In Back After Attempting To Break Up Fight Between Parents
A man is in critical condition after he was reportedly shot in the back by his 10-year-old son. Detroit police say the boy was questioned after shooting his father in an attempt to break up a fight between his mother and father, early Monday morning.
According to what the child told police, when he was unable to stop his parents from arguing, he went to the back room and got a gun, according to CBS Detroit.
“Prior to their arrival there was an altercation between an adult male and adult female inside the residence. During that altercation, the young man became concerned, apparently, for his mother’s safety. He stated that he picked up a gun and it accidentally went off at that time,” Detroit Police Captain Nick Kyriacou said.
The father was transported to a local hospital.
The boy was released into the custody of a family member.
A woman who claims to be the child’s aunt said, “It shouldn’t happen…and it wasn’t like that he was in there beating her. They had an argument and they got to fighting — and I don’t know where that gun came from.”
“I don’t know where that gun came from and it shouldn’t have been in the house,” she added,
The gun was recovered and police are continuing to investigate the incident.
H/T: My BFF @ComgenKDT with thanks.
Budda August 11th, 2014 at 9:27 pm
The gun just magically appeared….right.
tiredoftea August 11th, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Finalist for the 2015 NRA Child of the Year Award!
arc99 August 11th, 2014 at 9:51 pm
More guns do not make us safer.
When will we put that NRA lie to bed once and for all?
John David Peer August 11th, 2014 at 10:27 pm
The minute the evidence shows it to be true. In the meantime, rather than trying to do the impossible and disarm your citizenry, why not concentrate on DOABLE things like safe storage, more enhanced training, safety locks (for firearms not being attended, such as the above pistol)?
Or, you can continue to beat your collective heads against the wall, I don’t care.
The US is actually a relatively safe country, once one takes the 90% of gun homicides that are gang-related out of the mix.
In the meantime, you have the lowest rate of “hot:” burglaries and home invasions in the western world, thanks to laws that allow, even in theory, home defence. people like you that are opposed to firearms in the home, nevertheless benefit from this low rate. you are, in effect, a free rider.
In nations without such clear-cut laws, such as Russia, murder rates are between 2-4 times as high as the USE.. Oddly, criminals have found other ways to kill besides guns. crazy, eh?
Want to reduce gang violence? Then address the disgusting inequality in your nation.
More guns, in safe, legal, law-abiding hands = less violent crime.
The UNODC is very clear on this. You want to ‘refutiate” the numbers? Talk to the UN.
tiredoftea August 11th, 2014 at 10:33 pm
If you are not a lying idiot, then you are willfully ignorant one.
John David Peer August 11th, 2014 at 10:39 pm
Do you ever tire of flinging your poo from the cage?
I can’t remember even once seeing you make a post without calling someone an ‘idiot” or some such.
What are you, 11?
John David Peer August 11th, 2014 at 10:48 pm
“””According to a 2007 survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Switzerland has the third highest private gun ownership rate in the world, and one of the lowest homicide rates. Finland has the fourth highest private gun ownership rate, and a homicide rate half of Switzerland’s. The United States has by far the highest rate of private gun ownership (88 firearms per 100 people), but ranks 28th in homicides by firearm. None of the top 25 countries in gun ownership, and only four of the top 50, are in the top 25 in homicides by firearm [ref].
Meanwhile, none of the top 25 countries in homicide rates by firearm have high gun ownership rates. None are ranked in the top 25 in gun ownership, and most are not even in the top 50. Ecuador is 142nd in gun ownership, but 16th in homicides by firearm. Trinidad and Tobago is 129th in gun ownership, yet 7th in homicides “”
And I’ll add Canada to that…we have almost as many firearms per capita as you, and we had 160 gun homicides last year. Over 100 are known to be gang-related, and about 40 are tragic domestic murders. Around half-a-dozen are “unknown” and that leaves around 10 “stranger murders”. In a year. Like gun-free Chicago on a Thursday.
Guess what? It ain’t the guns, America…it’s you.
“”Guns don’t cause homicides. The social and moral condition of a community, city or country ultimately determines the degree of violence and murder.””
manchmom August 11th, 2014 at 11:07 pm
Hmmmm….that “Switzerland has lots of guns so THAT has to be the reason it’s safer!!” argument doesn’t really hold water, pal. I mean, yeah, there’s far more guns per capita than here in the States, but those guns are FAR better regulated than they are here. The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned. Can you imagine the NRA letting THAT happen in the US?
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 12:15 am
I am a regular proponent of firearms regulation, actually.
Just not stupid and ineffective prohibitions, written by people who don’t know their butt stock from their barrel shrouds.
And the argument is not “The US vs Switzerland”, it’s the US versus the world, there are MANY nations with in the same order of magnitude of gun ownership, with a fraction of your death rate….nor is anyone making the argument you paraphrased: The Swiss are just one group out of many that own plenty of firearms yet somehow manage (for the most part) to avoid US-style carnage.
Want to reduce your gun deaths? Then address inequality, inner-city poverty and hopelessness, provide universal health care (to prevent hundred’s of thousands of bankruptcies that can lead to suicide), provide universal mental health care, increase resources for women in abusive relationships…and stop this ridiculous “war” on drugs.
And stop taking silly “assault weapons bans”, which are nothing more than a ban on the modern black composite stock, and start talking sensible safety laws, such as storage, training, BG checks and closing the “gun show loop hole”.
But, as long as zealots like Dianne “I’ve got MY gun already” Feinstein continue to preach prohibitions and bans, you will never get the support of the NRA OR most of America’s gun owners. And rightly so. Prohibition does not affect availability, only price. That’s something that liberals USED to know.
The AWB 2.0, proposed after Sandy Hook, was a senseless kneejerk reaction, designed more to try and stimulate the Democratic base, and poke a needle in the eye of the Republican one. Of course, neither Feinstein nor Obama believed for one second that it would pass. Good thing, because Gallup tells us that 40% of Democrats are gun owners, or live with someone who is. Modern rifles have modern features, like adjustable stocks and ergonomically improved grips, barrel shrouds (a safety feature), bipod mounts, recoil compensators, and so on. My favorite deer rifle has a folding stock to facilitate travelling through thick bush. The firearm, like most everything else, has evolved.
And the AWB 2.0 would prohibit all of those features above, and for what? Nonsense!
In addition, it would have rendered worthless 95% of the military surplus collections in American homes, with the stroke of a pen, and done absolutely NOTHING to reduce violence. My 100 year old Enfield, with its removable A1A magazine and bayonet would have been BANNED. Built in bloody 1917! What on earth is the purpose of banning a rifle like that?!
Two years ago, Obama ridiculed bayonets, now members of his party want to ban them!
Tell me, please, how many Americans were killed last year in the US by a bayonet??
Liberals like to demand that the right educates itself about everything from climate change to evolution…and we ridicule them (rightly so) when they refuse.
And then you see us doing the exact same darn thing about firearms.
manchmom August 12th, 2014 at 9:20 am
Dude, if you could get even 1% of the NRA-lovin’ gun nuts that interact with me online about this issue to agree to even ONE reasonable gun control action (ALL of your suggestions are excellent, beeteedubs) then I’d jump for frickin’ joy, Shcott. Unfortunately, the NRA has brainwashed the entire lower half of the country into believing that ANY REGULATION IS ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL. You guys have let the NRA run the show. And WHO is running the NRA? The GUN MANUFACTURERS. For a group of men who spend the bulk of their time bitching about conspiracy theories, how is it that NONE of the NRA goobers I’ve ever discussed this issue with see that the NRA really doesn’t have their best interests at heart? That the NRA is nuthin but a corporate shell for the companies that stand to make the most money off of people irrationally feeling that they need “more guns ore guns more guns!!!” ??
My point was, and still is….this ain’t Switzerland. They may have lots of guns, but they concurrently have LOTS OF REGULATIONS. We here in the US want our cake, and we want to eat it too. Ridiculous and childish, if you ask me.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 9:17 pm
I have no problem with regulation. I just don’t want prohibition.
especially an ineffective, kneejerk one that has absolutely NO basis in reality – as not ONE of you people have been able to justify ONE SINGLE item on the list of “banned items” on Feinstein’s AWB 2.0 – not one!
Regulations, written by experts, YES! Prohibitions written by angry suburban housewives, most whom have never even SEEN a gun (Feinstein admits she just looked at pictures to pick out the “bad” ones)…a resounding NO!!
For the life of me, I cannae fathom why “you people” find that so hard to understand for a liberal??
Prohibition, of something that millions of people have been using safely and responsible for 100 years is NOT a liberal policy, it’s a right wing authoritarian one!
I think I’m gonna have to blame your school system on this one, lol…
But the good news, is, my wife says I have already given you folks wayyyy too much of my time, and I have an album to finish, so I think I’m just about done.
It sucks that I didn’t seem to find ONE single person here with a grasp on the issue. All I got was vitriol and hate and insults and disparaging ad hominems from erstwhile colleagues even, not just the newbies. All because I enjoy the shooting sports, and hunting.
What a darn shame. Your nation has, I think, become irrevocably split, now that the left is employing the same gutter-based tactics as the right traditionally has.
I’ll leave “y’all” to your hate and ignorance.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 9:20 pm
Manchmom, that was not directed specifically at you…at least YOU put some effort into your replies, and for that I am grateful. Yes, the NRA holds an extreme position. But maybe they feel they HAVE to, in order to balance out the extreme positions of the anti-gun folks?
There is a lot to dislike about the current leadership of the NRA…but there is even MORE to dislike about the vitriolic anti-gunowner brigade that drools and salivates, spittle flying, every time the subject comes up.
It’s an OLYMPIC SPORT for Pete’s sake, lol!!!
See? You guys have even made me use triple conservative punctuation!!!
manchmom August 14th, 2014 at 11:50 am
I’m not anti-gun. I’m not even especially anti-violence; I believe that there are LOTS of times that force is the only option available. But the since the 70’s the NRA has become a voice not for the average gun owner, but for the gun manufacturers. (thank you Marian Hammer; another wonderful gift from the Sunshine State!) And what would make the gun manufacturers the happiest? IF PEOPLE NEED TO BUY MORE GUNS. Think about it. Guns aren’t like American made cars; they don’t need to be replaced every few years. The only way the shrinking gun-purchasing population will continue to provide profits for the gun industry is if you guys feel like you have to buy more and more guns and ammo. THAT’S why the NRA is so anti-regulation. There’s been absolutely no evidence that ANYONE is coming for ANYONE’s guns. Well, not since Ronald Reagan signed the Mumford Act into effect in the 70’s in California, but hey, we wouldn’t want any black folks to have access to guns, now would we?
What blows my mind is that every yahoo in the South thinks that the CIA and NSA are conspiring against them to steal their guns and monitor their Piggly Wiggly purchases, but not one of them can see that the NRA is playing them like a friggin’ violin? THIS is why liberals think that teabaggers are stupid as shit.
manchmom August 12th, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Settle down, cupcake. No one in this discussion mentioned prohibition except for you. The problem, as I see it, is that any discussion of regulation is immediately turned into those ad hominem attacks on liberals that you claim you abhor when they’re aimed at you. So……..that makes me wonder:
What REALLY is your agenda? Do you want to find a solution to what is clearly a huge problem in this nation of mine (not yours, apparently?) Or do you just want to rail and rant about how mean the liberals are and how we mistreated you and tried to grab your guns?
Let me remind you that YOU came to a webpage called The Daily Liberal and tried to pick a fight with people who obviously have dealt with shit coming from the NRA Big Book Of Things To Say To Libtards before. What did you expect was gonna happen? I don’t see how anyone here was attacking you for being a gun owner, and if YOU think you were attacked, you must be one delicate little flower.
Your wife is correct. You’re wasting your time here.
M D Reese August 12th, 2014 at 12:24 am
I say let’s adopt the Switzerland model. I understand that they have to account for every bullet, too.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 12:40 am
Incorrect. Only the 50 rounds issued by the gov’t. Citizens are free to visit any of hundreds of gun shops and buy all the ammo they want.
I guess I’m not “trolling myself” after all, eh?
M D Reese August 12th, 2014 at 12:23 am
You’re just trolling yourself now.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 12:41 am
jea August 12th, 2014 at 11:42 am
Of course you left out the most salient facts about the Swiss and guns. Do you even know what it is? If not, I’ll tell you.
In Switzerland, the vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations, however they is not allowed to keep the ammunition; Switzerland thus has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world in the world but without ammunition, not many people are going to get hurt by guns.
Finnish gun laws are very strict and you aren’t telling the entire story.
See this, for example:
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Incorrect. The Swiss gov’t issues 50 rounds, and citizens are free to visit any one of hundreds of gun stores (it varies by canton) and purchase however much ammo they want.
And what is the point of posting a WIKI about Canada? We have all kinds of firearms up here: handguns, AR-15’s, short-barreled shotguns, you name it. Our laws work just fine the way they are.
In California, and NY, their laws are actually more strict than ours are.
I have an Archangel Nomad in .22LR with a 110 round drum mag – FULLY legal (of course!), but don’t try that in California, lol…
It has a folding stock: don’t let them see that in NY!
I have no problem with regulation, I just do not support prohibitions and bans, especially ones like the failed AWB.
I never implied that those other countries have no regulations, they do, as does the US! California has a MUCH stricter limitation on gun ownership than does Canada! Would you like to co0mpare the murder rates between, say, Toronto, and LA??
I’ll say it again: it ain’t the guns, America, it’s YOU.
tiredoftea August 11th, 2014 at 11:45 pm
Umm, no, just you and similar clowns with a gun fetish.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 12:27 am
I shall never understand how a moderator can feel like he/she has the right to hurl such abuse at visitors to this site.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 12:28 am
I shall continue to flag your childish vitriol, but it’s a bit odd, flagging a mod’s post, lol…Alan must be away, is he?
M D Reese August 12th, 2014 at 12:22 am
What’s next? A round of “No, YOU shut up!”?
fahvel August 12th, 2014 at 2:45 am
he’s no 11 yr old – he is someone who responds negatively to idiots!!!
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 4:15 am
et tu, fahvel?
M D Reese August 12th, 2014 at 12:21 am
Cut and paste talking points. I’m surprised that he didn’t mention the statistics on car deaths…
Anomaly 100 August 11th, 2014 at 11:08 pm
No one is trying to disarm you. Your party if teeming with paranoia.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 12:25 am
Lol, it matters not how many times you repeat it, it doesn’t magically come true. You are not Dubya!
I am a Canadian, I have no “party” down there, although I have lived and worked down there many times over the years.
And the AWB 2.0 very much DOES disarm folks, you obviously have not read up on it.
The fact that gun owners might be still allowed to own a single-shot blunderbuss, at the largesse of the Democratic Party, does not mean they wouldn’t have been been “disarmed”.
Do you understand that a “prohibition” doesn’t mean there are absolutely NO items available? During the alcohol prohibition in the US, one could still obtain it through prescriptions, for biology labs, for medicinal purposes etc etc. But it was still a prohibition. It is important to understand this.
It’s a bit like saying that the Republicans could ban all abortions after week 6, but you can still therefore technically have one, and so they therefore haven’t removed your rights. So would you be in agreement with that?
Anomaly 100 August 12th, 2014 at 7:54 am
You’re really whacky. I like you anyway but you’re just too far out there to respond to anymore. It’s futile for me to even try.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 8:42 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way. But, honestly, I haven’t really SEEN you respond to me with anything much other than personal attacks and mud-slinging, and so I won’t likely miss your input.
It’s a shame that folks like you are SO blinded with their hatred of all things “gun” that dialogue is just not possible. I can’t help but feel that under all that anti-gun fear resides a reasonable person, but your continued absurd business about my “not possibly being a liberal” has shrouded it. Anomaly100, most issues facing us today have “left and right” viewpoints, conservative and liberal, and any number of intermediate postions…infinite, in fact. I think that you, and others here since the merger, are trying to hard to create two teams: “them, and us!”, and all I see is you driving the wedge deeper into your nation’s fissure…shame, really.
But. before you go, how about helping me to be less “whacky (sic)”, and explain to me, with specific examples, one or two things I have posted here that you consider to be untenable…or “whacky”?
In am a liberal gun owner, I support safe storage, training, BG checks, closing the gun show loop hole, and even 3rd party liability insurance (I have $5 million)…but I do NOT support bans and prohibitions, like those proposed by Feinstein et al in their failed AWB 2.0.
Now you tell me, where is the “whacky (sic)” in that?
And also tell me, when did so-called “liberals” start believing in prohibitions anyway??
It didn’t work on booze, hasn’t worked on drugs, will never work on the sex trade, and it sure as heck failed on firearms.
Violence within a nation does not come from how many guns there are, it comes from the social , moral and economic conditions within their borders.
I hope that one day, if you hope to be taken seriously as a journalist, and I have enjoyed some of what you’ve written, I hope that you will be able to rise above the one-dimensional bitterness and anti-gun blinders worn by so many here.
It really is a fantastic sport, is shooting. I suppose that’s why it remains in the Olympics.
Unlike the running Internet snark, pitching ad hominems, or hurling urls…
Anomaly 100 August 12th, 2014 at 8:56 pm
You’re not a liberal. At least be honest. This is me being honest with you: I did not read your lengthy comment. I just skimmed through it. If you were a liberal, you’ll call out irresponsible gun ownership and not whine like a rwnj, “They’re trying to take our guns!”
Because liberals don’t buy into that big fat lie. Only Republicans and libertarians do.
Enjoy your night. I won’t respond to you any further after this. I’m a busy person and all of your comments are exactly alike, same remarks, same bullshit.
John David Peer August 13th, 2014 at 1:54 am
In other words, “if I was a liberal, I would agree with everything Anomaly100 says”, that’s what you REALLY mean, isn’t it?
When you grow up and get out to see a bit of the world, you are going to find that it just doesn’t work that way. There are 7 billion people, with 7 billion world views, and part of being a TRUE liberal, is to take the POV of others into consideration, and not just wallow around in insults, obscenities and childish ad hominem attacks.
Your contribution, Anomaly100, to the discussion is almost nothing. Zip. Like trying to have a conversation with a 9 year old.
I look forward to you ignoring me, because obviously I wasted my time composing a detailed post for you to try to see if I could explain why I see things the way I do, Glad to hear you didn’t waste your precious time (*snicker*) reading it. Maybe one day you’ll be ready to take your fingers out of your ears and hear that not every person you meet is going to march in lock step with you.
Life’s like that. Vive la difference…
M D Reese August 12th, 2014 at 12:19 am
I notice that you don’t mention the obvious things we should do, like universal background checks, registration, training, licensing–and yes–insurance. A militia is useless unless it is well-regulated.
And by the way, this could have been my family. Fortunately my granddad took my father’s gun away when he found out that it had been pulled out during a fight and that it was stored loaded in an unlocked closet with two kids (4 and 10) in the house. We never had another gun.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 12:35 am
Actually, I did – in my very second sentence on the thread. (As well as in almost every other thread on guns).
I am a regular advocate of ALL those things you mentioned. My collection resides in an alarmed vault, with trigger locks (redundancy) and the ammo stored at the opposite end of the house.
And I have $5 million in 3rd party liability.
But I am a fervent opponent to prohibitions – especially those written by folks that don’t know what they’re talking about.
Banning barrel shrouds?
arc99 August 12th, 2014 at 12:52 am
Please note that I did not refer exclusively to violent crime. I am including injury or death due to accident or negligence.
More guns mean more opportunities for accidental or negligent discharge of that gun. Also note that I am not proposing any new law. I am simply asking the NRA to explain how it is that an increase in firearms will lead to decreased accidental or negligent use.
By their logic, we can lower traffic fatalities by making it easier to get a driver’s license.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 4:09 am
I agree with most of that, actually.
It’s pretty clear that, when all else is constant, more guns mean more accidents. That’s common sense, right?
And so, why are accidents on a steep decline (please use an unbiased source, life is too short to argue cold stats, they’re down, period)…?
The answer is, because more people ARE taking more training. Courses on everything from tactical rifle to pistol/holster use to “cowboy action”…prone shooting, moving targets, long range shooting…the list goes on…are cropping up everywhere, even here in Canada! There should ne MORE: one controversial idea I have is to introduce gun clubs and SUPERVISED trips to the range, into inner-city schools! That’s right, guns in schools, hahaha, and I don’t know why I am bothering here…but my idea is that if you let young people assuage their natural (or movie/videogame induced, whatever) curiosity about guns, they will be far less likely to wander into gangs – they can be told “stay on the straight and narrow and one day you can be a legal gun owner and even a champion marksman!”.
Besides, wealthy kids are already getting the chance to try it…my local range rents out to a private high school once a month…and so, if we don’t offer less privileged kids the same opportunities, what, really, are we saying to them? We don’t trust you like we do the rich kids, is that it?
Look, sport shooting is fun…really fun. It’s terrible that there is so much violence in your nation, but I have lived all over the world, 3 continents, and nothing you can say will convince me of anything other than the truth: it ain’t the guns, America – it’s you!
And so there IS more training going on these days…ranges have become far more “interactive” with their customers…competitions, different styles, more woman participating, young people…
And so “all else” is NOT “the same”, as the saying goes. Sport shooting is taking off as a sport/hobby. And a big part of the reason for that is the AR platform. The NYT’s Dan Baum, in “Gun Guys”, calls it ” Barbie for men”, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the plethora of quick-attach accessories there are for this, the “Model T” of sporting rifles…or, as Rachel Maddow dishonestly calls them, “assault rifles”.
Or, worse, the made-up term “assault weapon”…a neologism designed to invoke maximum emotion…like the right’s “partial birth abortion”, another made-up term.
Both rubbish, and intellectually dishonest.
Negligent discharges are way down as well, from the FBI’s own numbers, but you’d never know it from the way the media has been manipulating things.
It’s too bad.
jasperjava August 12th, 2014 at 2:03 am
Arc99: “When will we put that NRA lie to bed once and for all?”
Crazy gun nut: “The minute the evidence shows it to be true.”
As if the bloodthirsty knuckle-dragging psychopaths of the NRA have EVER based their beliefs on evidence. You’re stooping very low here.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 3:39 am
And what are some evidence-based facts that you think the NRA are ignoring? Examples? I think the NRA takes a “no compromise” position on firearms as a needed balance with the anti gun zealotry I am seeing lately from the far left. Do thy sound extreme? Yes, to me, a believer in firearms regulation, they do.
About the only thing I have in common with the NRA, is that I fervently oppose prohibition.
jasperjava, if you want to call me a “crazy gun nut”, I can’t stop you, But either you have a super short memory of tis site over the past few years, or you’ve been swallowing some pretty bitter pills of late. you and that Kenobi-wan dude.
I have ALWAYS supported firearms regulation, and I have never once, not ONCE argued against safe storage laws, better training, better background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and even 3rd party liability insurance (I have $5 million)…what’s left? I support that too!
But JUST NOT BANS OR PROHIBITIONS of something that millions and millions of folks use safely and responsible, all based on the actions of a relatively small percentage!!
That is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, THE most anti-liberal position it is possible to take on anything – pure prejudice my erstwhile friend, pure disgusting prejudice .
And not one person here has been able to formulate a reasoned response to my query: what good is a ban on bayonets, recoil compensators, adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, pistol grips and/or bipod mounts??
All I get are these tiresome and repetitive (and absurd) ad hominems: you’re a troll! You’re sick! You’re heartless!
And now I’m a “crazy gun nut” according to my erstwhile pal jasperjava, because I believe in EVERY GUN SAFETY LAW THERE IS, except prohibitions??
Un. be. freaking, liev-able
I no longer have a thread of doubt that, on this issue, the American left is headed for a terrible political blunder! this anti-gun hysteria and hyperbole – and that’s EXACTLY what it is, because violence is down, suicides are down, and most importantly, accidents are down.
And tey’d go down even FURTHER if we brought gun safety course back to the schools!
I couldn’t give a carp if any of you cretins believe me or not, my mother, still alive and active at 78, is a Quaker, and a lifetime peace activist. Afew years ago she made the news for picketing an air show that had gotten too militaristic.
And, in high school, and later college, she was on the marksmanship team. There was even a shooting range in the basement of he high school in the ’50s!
You cannot GET further “left” than my Quaker parents, you just can’t! yet they BOTH know how to handle a firearm, and how not to bungle it up, because they learned!
This idea that guns are a “right left” issue will be the undoing of the Dems, who, by all rights, should be sweeping Congress! It is already their undoing. There are enough moderates who will avoid voting to flip the House, simple to avoid Dianne Feinstein’s stupid AW 2.0.
Ignore me all you want, I really don’t care (that much)…but you guys are blowing it…the anti-gun vitriol across the media is blowing it. I spend time on gun websites, you guys don’t, I know it is. Many folks I talk to, mostly rural, will simply not take the chance of losing the “checks and balances” of a divided gov’t.
Drop the BS.
fahvel August 12th, 2014 at 2:41 am
before you babble on – check some stats – the number of gun deaths by gangs vs all other arbitrary gun deaths – you will be surprised.
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 4:24 am
No, I won’t. I have been reading quite a bit on the subject – including on the variable ways in which gov’t and Law enforcement agencies tabulate crimes. I have “Living with Guns”, the Gun Guys” and Lott’s work on my kindle.
You have to look at the parameters they use. For instance, some agencies, when they categorize a homicide, include the “relationship” between a cab driver and a passenger. That becomes a “know each other ” statistic! Well that’s just crazy.
No, all my surprise dwindled away after the second or third book on the subject.
My use of 90% is on the high side though, of that I will agree. I have seen stats as low as 10-30% for “gang-related”. But, honestly, it’s all about how one categorizes the relationships…it’s complex, and open to local corruption…as no police agency wants either a “gang problem” on the front page of their local, or a “serial killer”.
Here’s a stat that might surprise YOU, though?
Most kids ever tragically killed at once in a school in the US?
36, but a nutcase with a stick of dynamite.
You can’t ban crazy!
manchmom August 12th, 2014 at 9:34 pm
“I have been reading quite a bit on the subject – including on the variable ways in which gov’t and Law enforcement agencies tabulate crimes. I have “Living with Guns”, the Gun Guys” and Lott’s work on my kindle.”
Now, THERE’s a reference library that’s full of thruthiness and fact!
John David Peer August 13th, 2014 at 1:44 am
Oh, so you are familiar with Dan Baum, the Jewish liberal journalist from the NYT’s and his new book “The Gun Guys”?
What did you think?
Lol…didn’t think so. You disappoint me, manchmom, I briefly thought you might be a LL poster that can actually spit out an entire paragraph without resorting to a childish personal attack, but I guess not. You haven’t the first clue who those authors are, with the possible exception of the antis’ arch enemy, john Lott, a former gun control advocate that revised his position midway through his research, when he crunched the numbers and saw that guns don’t create violence, social condition do….and yet you spit out your sarcastic vitriol regardless.
What is with ‘you people”? You just cannot wrap your heads around the fact that not every liberal agrees with your anti-gun silliness and parade of misinformation?
Honestly, you anti-gun folks are like trying to discuss science with Creationists: you’re filled with scorn and self-confidence, and yet almost completely devoid of subject knowledge…it’s astounding!
When it comes to firearms, American liberals act just like their right wing counterparts, i.e. “proud to be ignorant”…
“We don’t need no stinkin’ books to tells us guns is bad!”, is that it??
M D Reese August 12th, 2014 at 12:14 am
The phrase “cold, dead fingers” comes to mind…
Susan August 12th, 2014 at 12:25 am
When does the 10 year old’s life sentence begin?
Jeff Allen August 12th, 2014 at 1:30 am
It just did.
Khary A August 12th, 2014 at 9:46 am
Hmm I wonder why the child didn’t just call the police? Is it troubling to anyone else that the child’s psyche went to killing as a solution as opposed to finding a peaceful one?
Susan August 12th, 2014 at 12:57 pm
It seems, Khary, that this is a case where the child learned from observing the parents … probably had seen his dad and/or mom pick up a gun on more than one occasion.
majii August 12th, 2014 at 3:15 pm
I wonder where the kid got the idea of grabbing a gun to settle a dispute?
The NRA and the usual suspects will be among the first to claim that it/they had nothing to do with the increasing propensity for some Americans to grab a gun to settle a dispute!
John David Peer August 12th, 2014 at 10:03 pm
Many in the NRA will claim that it comes from video games, in particular FPS games.
I am less sure that they are wrong about that, than I used to be.
I don’t play these games, but my goodness they have become realistic looking!
And players often come on to firearms chat groups, and their knowledge is sometimes quite deep – at least from a theoretical POV.
Certainly they seem to know more about ballistics, correct nomenclature and the different types of firearms than I did as a child! More than most folks here, that’s for sure.
Just last week when a youngster tragically shot a sibling with a negligently stored pistol, when asked how he knew how it operated, he answer ‘from my video gaming”.
From the mouths of babes, eh?
But go, ahead, anti-gun folks, ignore the facts once again…
jea April 28th, 2015 at 10:24 am
Nope. It’s the gun nuts and the anti-intellectual right that is the problem.